Tuesday, May 14, 2013

Mother's day and the sun shined.

I don't write much about myself or my family. The result I think of the attacks by the hate-siters distressed that their campaign against David Bain failed, and an innocent man walked free despite a full on hate-campaign. So distressed, that they needed to turn their fury upon those that had been vocal critics of the weak, and now discredited case, that keep Bain in prison for over a decade. In other words personalised an attack against whom ever they might be able to target, and unfortunately their families and friends. The book isn't closed on that yet, with some matters yet to be finalised in the Courts. It has made me consider why I have invested time in arguing against the absurdity that was the flawed case against David Bain - particularly because he is somebody I have never met.

Some of my critics say it is because that I am anti police having led a less than sheltered life, that however doesn't explain that on this blog and elsewhere I have saluted the work of several police, even Judges and argued the case for others that haven't appeared to getting a fair go. Of course surface analysis has always been the forte of the hate-siters, everything must be packaged and labelled as to whether a person is for or against them. A situation that reminds me of the motto(s) often expressed by gangs. In the fullness of time I may write more about the detail that has most often led me to the often involuntary desire to help out the 'little' guy or those not getting a fair go. In the meantime I'll let any readers make their own decisions as to my motivation and the reason I didn't 'walk away' into silence when everything including the kitchen sink was being thrown at myself and family by bitter people who deemed themselves to be 'right thinking' New Zealanders.

Which brings me to the point I wished to make about Mother's day, when as I say above, the sun shone bright. Yesterday I had the opportunity to meet an on line companion and her husband, preparing for that visit I took my youngest to the supermarket to do some shopping and buy flowers on the advice of the 6 year old. Just leaving home I remembered my own mother, someone of indomitable spirit and strength, who in the years I was separated from her, I would be often brought news by a Catholic Nun, Joan, who by some co-incidence crossed paths with me in what has often been described as the 'end of the road.'

As a primary aged child I would sing mocking songs in reply when seeing the boys from the Catholic school finding their way home, from one side of our fence where they might be picking fruit from the family's trees that overhung the pathway. Little did I know then that I would have serious feuds with some of those boys that resulted in a lot of blood shed lasting over many many years. The issue of course was never Catholicism or being a Protestant, that wasn't important to me or to them. We were just kids growing up sons of soldiers in a fairly tough area. Years later I would discover that I had Catholic roots myself, not that it would have ever deterred either party from the bitterness of 'tit for tat.' So driving to the supermarket past the old Catholic grave yard where those then boys once went to school, I could see the paint splashed on some of the graves, and wondered as I often have, why that paint  hasn't affected the sensibilities of a nation, such as when, in equally destructive measure, Jewish graves are sometimes defaced, or that of Anzacs in Gallipoli.

That spirit of my mother that I mentioned earlier was such that while she never actively supported me in doing anything other than the right thing, she also never recoiled from that fact I would fight anybody for 2 bob, no matter the number or if they were a gang or not. A somewhat disordered and bizarre take on life I admit but attached to me for reasons still difficult to understand, other than perhaps by the phrase 'wont back down.' There is little power in that, little to celebrate in a grotesque accumulation of what makes a person fight no matter the odds and not matter the apparent stupidity, or misguided (ness) of the 'cause.' Yet when I was finally able to visit my mother myself (rather than benefiting from the news of her from dear Sister Joan) she had been in deep dementia for nearly a decade, blind, deaf (a deteriorating problem for most of her life) and unable to speak. Sister Joan and others had said, (and how could they know) that she was 'waiting for me.' So it was, visiting my mother with my soon to be wife and finding a gaunt skeletal figure that had replaced the happy and kind women of my childhood and youth. She had long been bed ridden, yet somehow she stirred, and with barely wet lips whispered to my intended 'look after my boy.'

I was married a few days later and of course my mother couldn't attend, it was short of the next Christmas that she died, my wife holding her hand and myself shrunk into the shadows of loss. All memories brought home by the Mother's day when the sun shone, when I would soon after meet a friend for the first time, wondering no little, as she may have herself, what it was that causes one to question the validity of claims as to what is 'right' and what are in fact 'right thinking New Zealanders.'

Tuesday, May 7, 2013

Teina Pora - trapped in a sloth like system.

It took 4 days for Rutherford to glean sufficient evidence by holding Teina Pora incommunicado in the Otahuhu police cells where, as the videos show, he bullied him and lured him  by turn into a trap of life imprisonment for a crime the police had already decided that Pora had not committed. A crime which however much Rutherford 'fed' Pora information and details he, Pora, knew patently little about. 4 days has turned to 20 years and Pora is still in prison, recently refused parole for having a lighter in his cell and by reason of a couple of other petty misdeeds. 20 years and think back to those videos showing Rutherford offering Teina cigarettes and later getting hot under the collar because Teina wasn't revealinng what he didn't know but which Rutherford would tell him.

What a trap, and no wonder 2 decades later he might have a lighter in his cell and be able to enjoy a cigarette if he can get one. Not many people in New Zealand believe that Pora is guilty. Those people look expectantly at the 'system' to put things right. It's not a fair go, it's not even an attempt at a fair go, it's a straight out framing of a boy for a crime he didn't commit and which he continues to be held in prison because he won't admit what he hasn't done. He didn't kill Susan Burdett. Malcom Rewa killed her, maybe killed others, and raped over 20 women in one extended spree often attacking the head of his victims, just as Susan Burdett was attacked to the head and left dead by the lone rapist.

Rutherford knows the liklihood of Rewa's guilt, as does the Commissioner but they're holding on to the incredible co-incidence that a boy refused a lawyer, bribed into believing he was going to get a reward and willing to say whatever was required to profit from an idea most likely put into his mind by members of his own family was a killer despite police earlier clearing him of the crime. But what do you do? You petition the Governor General with new evidence showing the absurdity of the original trial evidence is even more fractured by time than it's incredulous start with a boy unable to point out the home, or even the street in which he is alleged to have killed a woman he'd never met and whom he couldn't physically describe. And then you wait.

You wait in a cell as Scot Watson waits, for 3 or 4 years now to find out the result of his own petition to the Governor General. You wait as does Allan Hall, long since released from prison but still fighting for his name to be cleared through the Governor General, waiting now into his second year. So just to put this in context Watson was arrested after an investigation of several months, Alan Hall in a similar short time and happened to be a small white man when all reports of the assailant in his case were of a tall dark, athletic man. Of course Teina Pora was held for 4 days illegally until there was 'enough' to charge him. What do they have in common? Fairly quick decisions by police of their guilt then literally decades trying to put the obvious right.

Many common denominators feature in these and similar miscarriages of Justice, but the most graphic must be the ineffectiveness of 'appeals' to the Governor General for either pardons or a return to the Courts. They just drag on for years, the poor cousin of the legal system and our lawyers do't seem bold enough to demand the rights of their clients under the Bill of Rights, or seek Judicial Reviews as to delays in the exercise of the Royal Prerogative. It seems that it is time to be bold and reach out to the Courts rather than abide antiquated and slothful poor cousins to Justice. No system that can lock away a man for 2 decades for a crime that he didn't commit should be tolerated, or indulged while taking an eternity to look inside itself when the obvious is apparent to all.

I'm pleased and disappointed at the same time that Pora's lawyers have put on hold his application to the Governor General (tardy as the response from that office has been) and gone directly to the Privy Council for a timely exercise of the appeal process. It's good that Pora's lawyers have pushed on, yet in doing so they've highlighted once again the beast that  takes four days to steal a young man's freedom takes years to respond to evidence of the same man's evidence of his innocence. It isn't right, and all power to the lawyers and falsely imprisoned who push for their rights to have the Courts review their cases. No man or woman should be denied their rights to the Court and particular not through a 'figure head' that,while enshrined in statute, proves time inefficient and appears slumberous and favourable to the idea that 'due process' stops with a conviction.

Sunday, May 5, 2013

Here you go Kent, 'Qualified Privilege.'

Privilege is a special legal right or immunity granted to a person or persons. Qualified privilege is an immunity from lawsuit, usually a lawsuit for defamation, for acts committed in the performance of a legal or moral duty and acts properly exercised and free from malice. If malice can be shown, qualified privilege is not a protection against defamation.
An example of qualified privilege is the immunity from defamation for statements made in the course of an employer's duties. Another is the immunity of the press from defamation charges for statement made in good faith, unless it can be proven that they were made with malice.
Qualified privilege should not be confused withabsolute privilege, which protects the person from lawsuit no matter how wrong the action might be and even if the action is committed with malice or an improper motive.
Anybody suspect that Kent was acting with a 'legal or moral duty' when he was defaming Karam, Reed, various witnesses and others? Maybe the poor deluded chap thinks that stalking a jury, spreading propaganda, stalking and outing people is noble and near 'godliness' in terms of morality and the Law.
Though even a sceptic might have to admit that if Kent was turning his 'divinity' and all seeing eye to the subject of insanity, out and out nuttiness, in fact total whacko, in judging a similarly afflicted person he would have all the qualities to 'peer review' with 'qualified privilege a fellow or fellowette of a nature and disposition just like his own. His dear mate Purkiss, cabbage scribbler from Coromandel, could be equally entitled to offer a 'qualified privileged' view of certain nutters who are in abundance in the various hate-sites, spitting and snivelling by turn as they rub themselves or stick needles and pins into hand sewn dolls.
But alas, unfortunately and nevertheless, old Kenty baby and slick Vic the toilet cleaner and loiterer, have no 'immunity from defamation' based on a 'legal or moral' right.
Try another one fellas.

Saturday, May 4, 2013

Kent Parker: The madness thickens.

The People vs Joe Karam
The defamation trial of Joe Karam vs Parker and Purkiss is to be held at the High Court in Auckland starting on 14 October 2013 and going for three weeks. The trial is to be held before a judge only. Joe Karam is represented by Michael Reed and both Parker and Purkiss will be representing themselves.
The legal action taken by Karam against the two Justice for Robin Bain (JFRB) group members consists of four actions:
  • Against Parker as admin of the JFRB facebook site for being 'publisher' of other people's comments on the page.
  • Against Parker as creator of this website for being publisher of other people's comments.
  • Against Parker for his own comments on the Facebook page and on his website.
  • Against Purkiss for his own comments on the Facebook page, on his website and on Trade Me messageboards.
Parker and Purkiss are defending using legal defences of Truth, Truth overall, Honest Opinion and Qualified Privilege. There are some 100 comments involved in the legal action allegedly published by Parker and Purkiss. They maintain that the defamation suit is improper and vexatious and will be presenting substantial evidence before the Court.

As can be seen by the above press release Kent Parker is still in goo gaa land. Before considering that point, it must be remembered that there was a actual reminder of how Parker could have avoided being the subject of defamation proceedings - when last week the leader of the Conservative Party put a blogger on notice that he would be sued if he failed to 'take down' certain material Colin Craig considered to be defamatory of him. The blogger complied and so it would seem the warning of legal action is no longer in place.

Similarly Parker and co we were warned by letter in 2009 that information published by them was considered by Joe Karam to be defamatory of him and he wanted it removed. Four years later Parker has had a date set for a trial, in which he publicly discloses the case as 'The People vs Joe karam,' in much the same way as some American States cite proceeding as The People against John Doe. Of course as Parker tries for sympathy he seems not to realise that the action is not by the state against Joe Karam - it is in fact a proceeding brought by Joe Karam against Parker and Purkiss. Two men who launched an illegal, opportunistic attack against Karam and others, feeling if nothing else that they might have had public opinion on their side. On the basis of such a calculation, they were unable to discern that 'public opinion' - which incidentally has never favoured them in a single poll, is not the basis of our law. Our Law is written and forged by precedent, no where in the history of our Law or it's foundations in Britain and earlier Rome is 'public opinion' an instrument of the law either to prosecute or defend a case.

If Parker, Purkiss and the other twisted sisters had argued opinions in public against Karam that were true, could reasonably be seen as true by a reasonable and informed person defamation would never have followed. So intent based on a reasonably held opinion is the basis for the defamation charges against Parker and Purkiss. But what was the intent? Ostensibly to defend Robin Bain who, by the course of time and Judicial proceedings, is seen to have been the killer of his family rather than his falsely imprisoned son David. An opinion by Parker and Purkiss? On the surface yes but underneath definitely not. Intention to promote the innocence of one man over another doesn't include defamatory attacks, and most certainly it doesn't include a campaign of lies by a group who thought that it was OK to stalk a Jury, harass witnesses after the trial and even begin a campaign against members of the public who opposed their views.

I've had information for 3 years that some supporters of Parker and Purkiss who belonged to Parkers web site and other groups set up for the same purpose were also members of the Sensible Sentencing Trust through whom they agitated for false complaints to be taken to the authorities in order to harm those opposing their views, and, unfortunately, their families. There is no small irony that the SST itself is now subject to proceeding under the Privacy Act and Human Rights Act which appear to be very strong against them and in which, according to a report from preliminary hearing, included a 'blackmail letter' and 'threats.'

So just to get that clear in the Parker defamation case, 'the people' stand accused of blackmail and threats, 'people' who forged their cause for 'Justice for Robin Bain' with threats, lies, false complaints and targeting other New Zealanders in a vendetta for simply not believing in the absolute absurdity that Robin Bain didn't kill his own family. Parker was warned and chose to ignore it, he wasn't warned to stop his 'Justice' campaign but rather to stop defaming Karam. He could have proceeded legally, working hard to satisfy himself of his own beliefs and bring the facts to the New Zealand public. Instead he just repeated lies and his 'followers' repeated lies. One of which I should mention as also 'finding the light' this year, a particular idiot and 'site administrator' of one of Parker's site has repeated for years lies about 'injuries' David was reported to have had the morning of the murders, and a denial that David was ever strip searched. Someone I know sought details of the correspondence of that site administrator and the Minister over the subject, something which the 'man' relied upon at length, only to find it proved that the man was lying his head off about the 'official' information he had. Proving once again that 'Justice' is encompassed in lies for Parker and his hate-site buddies.

Not real buddies of course because Parker and Purkiss cannot find a lawyer to defend them despite having a 'bush lawyer' in their ranks and another 'qualified' Lawyer Racheal Membery at their disposal. This is of course a 'group' that bragged that they would 'finance' the defence of Parker and Purkiss who were reduced to relying on 'fund raising' concerts which no one attended. Leaving as it seems Parker and Purkiss preparing to defend themselves with 'truth' in October this year in a case in which they unaware of even who the parties are.

Just on that case and Trade Me mentioned in the 'press release' above. Trade Me didn't argue 'truth' when they negotiated a settlement with Karam last year, a settlement which included an apology. I also understand NZ Herald settled with Karam while proceedings against Fairfax Media, I predict, also won't go the distance to trial. Each of those parties no doubt spending 100s of 1000s before folding and 'waking up' to the fact there is no difference between print media and cyberspace when it comes to defamation, a fact that was obvious at least as long ago as 2009 when I cautioned Trade Me about the activities of Parker, Purkiss, O Brien, Cochrane, Curran and others many of whom share the membership of Parkers site and SST, so the shake out continues.

On another front, and to the very core, of what 'instigated' the hate-campaigns, lies and not the truth, the evidence against Robin Bain as time progresses get stronger, presenting something of a snag in the medium term for the current Minister whose decision making in David Bain's application for compensation is facing Judicial Review in the High Court also this year. I think it will be strike 3 against the Hate Sites, SST and the Minister for bad medicine costing a lot of money.

Wednesday, May 1, 2013

Police mocked Arthur Thomas

Usually you'd take hearsay reported from a pub with a grain of salt. But nothing with the Thomas case and the police can be taken with a grain of salt, that time is long since past. Too much now adds together to show that Thomas was not only framed but that the current police administration have simply taken up the cudgels of their predecessors in try to 'beat down' what is the country's most infamous framing of an innocent man.

No need to look far for corroboration of the claims by Queenie Edmonds made in the above article because they tie exactly with the shell planted by the late Hutton, the comments of the current Deputy Commissioner, Mike Bush, who when speaking at Bruce Hutton's funeral claimed that Huttons career had been one of distinction, this despite Hutton being named as the person who planted a shell case that largely resulted in Arthur spending around a decade for a crime he didn't commit, while at the same time his late ex wife Vivian Harrison going to her grave without an apology or compensation for the false assertion that she had fed baby Rochelle after Arthur had killed the baby's parents.

After 30 years and a Royal Commission the police hierarchy are still in denial about the false imprisonment of Arthur and applauding the career of the man who destroyed his life is it any wonder to expect that there are not scores of stories that will continue to emerge about the conduct of the police in the Thomas case. The answer is no, particularly so because an ex member of the force Ross Meurant spelt out in detail the machinations of the 'Hutton crew,' while the public at large appreciate that the planted shell case use to convict Thomas hadn't even been made at the time of the murders.

Commissioner Peter Marshall has a cupboard bursting with Miscarriages of Justice - Thomas, Bain, Watson,  Poara and Hall being the most prominent - all unsafe murder convictions, two with planted evidence and all 5 with evidence that was either with held or shouldn't have been admitted. Where does he start? By shutting the cupboard it seems and trying to shore up the cracks. That is increasingly clearly seen as his position, it is that position on which not only in the passage of time that he will be judged, but so too a police force emerging, or looking to be emerging into a modern era. By dishonouring justice Peter Marshall dishonours the police and the public of New Zealand.